If Bush was the president and the IRS was targeting liberal groups, this story would be on the front page of the NY Times for at least a month, among other liberal news sources.

It was on msnbc and CNN all day yesterday and today.

You really ought to get out more. And if your answer is "I'm not going to watch that liberal garbage!" then, well, you don't really get to make claims about what is and isn't covered by something you don't watch, do you?

This issue is over requests for additional information from groups applying for a tax exempt status that specifically excludes political groups, like the Tea Party an affiliate political groups.

It's not at all inappropriate for these groups claiming affiliation with a political organization to be asked to provide additional information before being granted this particular tax exempt status. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

If your job is to screen out inappropriate applications for tax exempt status that only non-political social welfare organizations are eligible for, who are you more likely to want more information from: Saint Jude's Orphanage or the Richmond Tea Party?

The only way we'll be able to tell if anything was actually targeting "conservative" groups as a form of political attack would be for us to see the list of applications and know what the standard procedure (if any) there is for choosing which to follow up on.

Yes its way out of line to single out conservative groups with the intent of keeping them from forming a non profit. IRS is supposed to be non partisan. Not surprised though Fed says nothing to see here move along. He tows the liberal party line.

He does kind of have a point, though I wouldn't use presidential elections to prove it.

They tried to bury Hillary Clinton's chances with Whitewater. The public completely forgot about it. I wouldn't be so quick to think there is going to be some huge public outcry from this, Benghazi, or the AP thing, though. Americans' memories are short.

The point about the presidential elections is valid too, but not really relevant to this particular case. The Republicans are going to have a hard time meeting the changing demographics with only rage on their side.

This next 8 months are going to make careers. The media machine is ramping into full overdrive right now. The thirst for information on these three scandals is driving the press into full throttle mode. I can only guess that you aren't following the news too closely right now if you don't think this is going to be a huge story. We're not even seeing the tip of the iceberg on this yet.

I have no faith in a holder justice dept getting to the bottom of anything that would hurt Obama or the democrats. This needs an outside investigator for both benghazzigate and IRSGATE. Our govt is more corrupt then ever. We have Chicago gangsters running the show.

Hear me now and believe me later: the Republicans, and Tea Party will both make significant gains together in the Senate in 2014 due to the IRS scandal. You don't have to believe me now, just remember when it happens that you heard it here: this is a game changer.

Hear me now and believe me later: the Republicans, and Tea Party will both make significant gains together in the Senate in 2014 due to the IRS scandal. You don't have to believe me now, just remember when it happens that you heard it here: this is a game changer.

Care to tell us where the gains are going to be made? That will at least put a little weight behind your claim.

This is hardly a bold prediction. As peace already pointed out, the Democrats have 21 seats up for reelection. It was already going to be tough for the Democrats to hold on to the Senate. For reference, 14 Republican seats were up in the 74 midterm after Watergate, and the Democrats only gained 5 seats total.

I predict the Democrats will only lose 3-4 total seats in 2014 Senate races.

Mark Begich of Alaska, Max Baucus of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is an obvious candidate to retire. He'll be 90 by November 2014. And Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia will be 77 by the midterms.

I think dems lose all 8 of these seats, and defend most, if not all of the other 12.

Hear me now and believe me later: the Republicans, and Tea Party will both make significant gains together in the Senate in 2014 due to the IRS scandal. You don't have to believe me now, just remember when it happens that you heard it here: this is a game changer.

Which has more to do with the Democrats having to "defend" more seats than any of these issues. As stated many times, Americans don't have a long-term attention span when it comes to politics. Benghazi will likely be used as an attack line because it has substance behind it. The phone-tapping and this IRS stuff? Give me a break. Go walk outside and ask twenty random people about these stories and they would have no idea what you are talking about. Secondly, the "leading" party (in this case the Democrats, with Obama in office and owning the Senate) traditionally, if not almost always, lose seats in a midterm election. It is just a historical trend.

I'm a little less optimistic than Houghtam is on the Democrats retaining seats in the Senate. I think anywhere between 5 and 7 seat gain is realistic, but I cannot say more or make estimates until I know who all is exactly running. A lot of things are still variable at this time.

Al Franken, MN -- MN is a pretty liberal state, but Franken isn't very popular and barely won last time around. Should be within the margin of error.

Tim Johnson, SD -- Long-time Senator will be retiring this year primarily due to health reasons. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin will not be running for the Democrats. Former (R) Governor of SD Mike Rounds will be running, and the only other Democrat to announce a bid is former Tom Daschle staffer Rick Weiland. Although the Democrats have had success in this very conservative state, I think Rounds will win on name-basis if the Democrats cannot field a better candidate.

Mark Begich, AK -- He barely won last time around even with the Ted Stevens controversy. Polling right now has Begich ahead slightly, but within the margin of error without a name even being fielded by Republicans. I think the Democrats lose this seat unless the GOP trots out a real loser.

Jeff Merkley, OR -- won in a squeaker back in 2008. Polling right now indicates it will be another close race, even with Oregon being a more liberal state. I think this is one they can hang on to, but I cannot say how popular Merkley is there. Advantage right now (small) to the incumbent.

Mary Landrieu, LA -- I don't think Mary Landrieu gets out of this one as a winner. Just my gut instinct. Know nothing about Louisiana politics, other than the fact that is a traditionally conservative state.

Kay Hagan, NC -- North Carolina's demographics and economic changes are making the state a little bit more liberal, but I definitely think this is a state the Republicans can recapture in 2014.

I think all the Northeastern States with races are safe for Democrats, the exception could be New Hampshire. Max Baucus is pretty popular in Montana, but I'd throw that in as a wildcard race as well.

As far as vulnerable Republican senate seats, Kentucky (McConnell) and Maine (Collins) would be the Democrats best bets to try and steal a state. Other than that, nowhere.

Mark Begich of Alaska, Max Baucus of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is an obvious candidate to retire. He'll be 90 by November 2014. And Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia will be 77 by the midterms.

I think dems lose all 8 of these seats, and defend most, if not all of the other 12.

They lose Alaska for sure...the others are not as clear as you think.

Baucus was a DINO, but he also won 73% of the vote last time. The vote will be much closer than 73%, but not in the bag for R by a long shot.

Hagan got 53% last time, and current polling shows her up by 10 or more against most candidates. A lot of time left for things to change. Unfortunately memories fade.

South Dakota will be interesting as well. Tim Johnson with 63% of the vote last time, but will not run for re-election.

Louisiana is probably the next most likely to fall to R IMO. Landrieu only had 52% like Hagan, and is up by 10+ against potential opponents, but Louisiana is a much more conservative state than North Carolina.

In Arkansas, Mark Pryor ran unopposed last time and got 80% of the vote. Republicans are going to have their work cut out for them in a state which otherwise should have been an easy win...don't count out the importance of the ground game, on which the R's will have to make huge strides.

I only see one sure loss to R's here. Now obviously I highly doubt they defend all their seats, but like Req and peace said, history shows they were going to lose a few anyway. A lot will change over the next 18 months, but the IRS thing? Req's right. It's going on right now and your average voter (you know, one who doesn't frequent political message boards everyday) doesn't have a clue about it...nor do they care.

I see a 3-4 seat gain for Republicans. Anything more is really optimistic for the Republicans, based on history, polling and past electoral performance.

Al Franken, MN -- MN is a pretty liberal state, but Franken isn't very popular and barely won last time around. Should be within the margin of error.

Tim Johnson, SD -- Long-time Senator will be retiring this year primarily due to health reasons. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin will not be running for the Democrats. Former (R) Governor of SD Mike Rounds will be running, and the only other Democrat to announce a bid is former Tom Daschle staffer Rick Weiland. Although the Democrats have had success in this very conservative state, I think Rounds will win on name-basis if the Democrats cannot field a better candidate.

Mark Begich, AK -- He barely won last time around even with the Ted Stevens controversy. Polling right now has Begich ahead slightly, but within the margin of error without a name even being fielded by Republicans. I think the Democrats lose this seat unless the GOP trots out a real loser.

Jeff Merkley, OR -- won in a squeaker back in 2008. Polling right now indicates it will be another close race, even with Oregon being a more liberal state. I think this is one they can hang on to, but I cannot say how popular Merkley is there. Advantage right now (small) to the incumbent.

Mary Landrieu, LA -- I don't think Mary Landrieu gets out of this one as a winner. Just my gut instinct. Know nothing about Louisiana politics, other than the fact that is a traditionally conservative state.

Kay Hagan, NC -- North Carolina's demographics and economic changes are making the state a little bit more liberal, but I definitely think this is a state the Republicans can recapture in 2014.

I think all the Northeastern States with races are safe for Democrats, the exception could be New Hampshire. Max Baucus is pretty popular in Montana, but I'd throw that in as a wildcard race as well.

As far as vulnerable Republican senate seats, Kentucky (McConnell) and Maine (Collins) would be the Democrats best bets to try and steal a state. Other than that, nowhere.

I think you're dead wrong about Franken. He has a 52% favorable rating, which isn't bad, and he has a track record of not grandstanding...he's basically the anti-John McCain. He rarely accepts requests for national interviews, and almost always accepts requests for interviews with his constituents. Regardlesss of how people might "feel" about how he performs, there's definitely not a whole lot of momentum to go against him.

Yes, which is why his being a DINO is important. He will bleed several percentage points over to the R side, so it will all depend on who is running. Polling currently shows both likely candidates losing to Baucus by ~10 points, and he's not even running.

I think you're dead wrong about Franken. He has a 52% favorable rating, which isn't bad, and he has a track record of not grandstanding...he's basically the anti-John McCain. He rarely accepts requests for national interviews, and almost always accepts requests for interviews with his constituents. Regardlesss of how people might "feel" about how he performs, there's definitely not a whole lot of momentum to go against him.

I don't think Oregon is in play, either.

Well, 52% favorability isn't bad, but it isn't great either. The key to this match-up is who they run against him. They always have a good ground game (GOP), and outside a few college towns (Moorhead, Duluth, Mankato, etc.) and Minneapolis/St. Paul -- the state has a lot of red to it. The demographic that helped push Franken through last time are likely going to be absent from this mid-term (younger voters, college kids, etc.) this time around. This is also one of the trends (like the one mentioned prior) you see in elections.

Minnesota is pretty much "purple." The state has always had polarizing figures as representatives. Jesse Ventura, Michelle Bachmann, Al Franken, etc. They go for loonies and crazies. It isn't a stable political arena and is becoming the Midwestern bastion of state sponsored welfare. I'm willing to bet that this seat is held on to, but it is definitely up for grabs.

I think SD, AK, LA are sure-fire gains for the GOP. I've seen Hagan up anywhere from 10 points at her high, to within the margin of error on others. I don't expect her to get the same sort of push she did back in 2008 when Obama carried the state, which undoubtedly helped her in the polls because people likely just voted down the ticket. That was a coat tail effect for sure. So as of now, I'll keep my 5-7 estimation.

As for Oregon, Merkley probably wins, but it won't be a cakewalk. He has been fundraising for a while now because he know the Republican friendly SuperPAC's are going to do all they can to go after him. I think Udall (D-CO) is up for re-election too and that could be a squeaker as well. The Republicans will have to pick and choose which places they want to invest the most money in. If I were them, I'd dump little money into SD, AK and LA -- and focus the resources on OR, MT, MN, CO and NC.

Yes, which is why his being a DINO is important. He will bleed several percentage points over to the R side, so it will all depend on who is running. Polling currently shows both likely candidates losing to Baucus by ~10 points, and he's not even running.

Montana has a dem governor,their last governor was also dem. It just so happens that the last dem gov was popular & is considering running to replace baucus. Brian scwietzer is his name. He runs and it's looking good for Montana staying blue.